                       |
| ||||
| XGID=--AAAB-BA-------ab-cccDCc-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10 | |||||
Blue has an ace to play | |||||
Ah. So you are asking, "If 3/2 and 4/3 are thematically similar, why does 4/3 roll out as badly as –.038 (relatively), which is not only significant but is more than half the distance between 3/2 and 7/6 (at –.065)?" That is beyond the scope of what I intended to cover, but here's what I think is going on:
Reasons in support of 3/2 (vs 4/3) are that
(a) The 3s (and to a partial extent 4s) that cover the slotted 4pt are diversified with 6s and 5s that will escape (or hit while escaping) next roll. With 3/2, there's a better chance of doing both (cover and run/hit), and with 4/3 it would be annoying to follow up with 31 and do neither.
(b) A 5-4-2 board (when you cover the 4pt after 3/2) will be stronger than a 5-3-2 board (when you cover the 2pt after 4/3). Granted, you are more willing to cover the 4pt than the 2pt, but hitting variations will tend to compel you to cover whichever point is slotted, if you can. (The degree to which you can't and then get hit on that point in parallel variations, partially negates this board-comparison factor.)
That said, I believe today's rollouts exaggerate the margins. Sometimes Blue won't hit even on the next two rolls, and even when he does hit one must consider what might or might not structurally survive. My experience suggests that in containment variations XG (even on higher plies) undervalues the 6pt versus the lower points, and I think the point-by-point bias is greatest between owning the 1pt and 2pt, and next greatest between 2pt and 3pt.
Overall, if I had to guess how the bots will roll this out decades from now, 3/2 will be (say) .01 to .015 over 4/3, and 3/2 (say) .03 to .035 over 7/6.
Nack